Yokohama Geolander AT/S 225/65R17 on 2013 Outback

112668 Views 98 Replies 39 Participants Last post by ohio13outback, Sep 2, 2019

creso

Discussion Starter · Aug 8, 2012

3

When I bought my 2012 Outback 2.5i Premium I immediately swapped the stock tires for Yokohama Geolander AT/S in the stock 225/60R17 size. When I picked up my 2013 I was planning on getting the same Yokohama Geolanders again. Apparently the 225/60R17 is on international back order until next year! Discount Tire couldn't find them anywhere, so I called Yokohama direct and they said 42 week backorder.

My local Discount Tire had a set of 225/65R17 in stock, so I went for it. They fit fine, but they rubbed in one spot on the front Splash Guards. I removed them and trimmed a bit, and now no rubbing. I took it offroad and articulated all corners, and the front at full wheel lock, and no rubbing. Three guys at the tire shop sat in the cargo area with no rub in the rear.

Just drove 60mi at 65-75mph and averaged 29.5mi/gal. Everything looks good for now, I'll post an update after I get a few more miles on them.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

81 - 99 of 99 Posts

bradze

· #81 · Sep 12, 2013

didn't order them but i want the geolanders because of the weight and the majority of my driving will always be on the road.

creso

Discussion Starter · #82 · Sep 13, 2013

AlexJet said:
What are the LONG-TERM feedback on the 225/65-R17s?

VERY happy with my set, 15k miles later. Lots of Colorado forest service roads, jeep roads, and snow. I believe this to be the best tire for the 2010+ Outback for anyone that leaves pavement.

Off-roading near Leadville Colorado a few weeks ago :

See less See more

AlexJet

· #83 · Sep 15, 2013

creso said:
VERY happy with my set, 15k miles later. Lots of Colorado forest service roads, jeep roads, and snow. I believe this to be the best tire for the 2010+ Outback for anyone that leaves pavement.

Off-roading near Leadville Colorado a few weeks ago :

Do you have any pictures of the spots you trimmed on your Outback?
I have checked mine with wheels straight and wheels turn. I barely have a space I can stick the finger between the wheel and the inner fender on the front. On the back its seems to be no more then 1/2" gap between the wheel and the front edge of the rear wheelwell. 225/65 are about 1/2" more in radius, so it will be millimeters clearance.
Unless '13 has different wheelwells, its difficult to see how to fit 225/65 on my '10.

bradze

· #84 · Sep 16, 2013

subiesailor said:
Hey Bradz check out the BFG Rugged Terrain's I can't recall what sizes the guys are finding that fit outside the stock range but I just dumped the tired and leaking Geo's off the truck for these and I'm impressed they also look mean. Good reviews for the most part.

I wonder if 245/65R17's would fit on the OB? They are very close in diameter and are maybe 3/4 inch wider? BFG makes a set of the Rugged Terrains in that size according to the chart

discount tire told me the biggest tire that would fit was one with an overall diameter of 29", so im guessing it won't fit. maybe with spacers but too heavy, im set on geolanders because i still will rallycross my car.

Natetheskate

· #85 · Sep 18, 2013

combatmedic870 said:
Mines reads 3mph slow at 75mph, which is good. keeps me from getting pulled over! LOL

mine too

MiddleAgeSubie

· #86 · May 16, 2014

Can you please report the mpg you get with the 225-65-17 Geolander AT-S?

I am especially interested in the 3.6 but I will gladly take 2.5 info over none.

Thanks!

Brainanator

· #87 · May 17, 2014

225/60/17 geolanders here. MPG is in my sig, we get REALLY crappy gas up here in ND. Whenever I got to MT I get a 2-3 mpg boost. WY gas is even better usually.

MiddleAgeSubie

· #88 · May 17, 2014

I do great on the stock size in AZ, 20-21/25-7. Summer will drag city down to 18 for sure. Apparently, going up that little should keep me from seeing any real difference.

I use AT S, too.

Willkarstens

· #89 · Aug 7, 2016

Pool Runner said:
Even the tire/ wheel plays a roll in absorbing energy that travels through the rear of a car in a rear-end collision. Think of the spare as an always inflated airbag for the rear of the car. Without it the rear end would wad-up like a limp noddle.

Very not true. Tires cant' count: as they don't have linear deformity characteristics. The shape of the well for the tire has a lot to do with it, but not the location of the spare. This is one of the more comical internet stories I've read in a while.

KSKarl

· #90 · Aug 8, 2016

True that the spare tire can't count-the car is designed to absorb a rear impact with no spare. Not only is it non-linear, you can't even count on it being there. Ever look for a spare in a rental?
But it's also true that anything in the crumple zone will absorb some energy. Had a similar discussion when I was designing aircraft structure and that Hawaiian 737 blew off a section of roof. Pretty sure the plumbing and AC ducts helped to hold it together, though none of it "counted." There's just no way to figure out how much it would help.

wowitsgaston

· #91 · Sep 9, 2016

subiesailor said:
I wonder if 245/65R17's would fit on the OB? They are very close in diameter and are maybe 3/4 inch wider? BFG makes a set of the Rugged Terrains in that size according to the chart

was this question ever addressed?

Brucey

· #92 · Sep 9, 2016

wowitsgaston said:
was this question ever addressed?

I don't believe 245/65/17 will fit a Gen 4. I know because I've seen 225/65/17 on a Gen 4 and it's pretty tight.

They will a Gen 5. I know because I have a set.

FatKidFromHook

· #93 · Apr 3, 2017

bradze said:
well i guess 28"+

I know this thread is way old but where you able to run any mud flaps with you 28"+ tires...I am looking at 225/65/17 and would like to have some mud flaps at one point?

bradze

· #94 · Apr 5, 2017

fronts no, rears yes. when i get some ambition ill do the rally car mud flap thing.

FatKidFromHook

· #95 · Apr 7, 2017

Thanks for the reply. I can't decide to do OEM size w/mud flaps or size up w/o flaps.

georgewu

· #96 · Apr 12, 2017

I Didn't Like the Handling of the larger Geolanders

I wish I'd seen this thread a couple of years ago. As I posted a couple of weeks ago on another thread, I replaced the stock Conti's with Yokohama's Geolander in the 225/65R17 on my 2014 3.6L.

I really did NOT like them. Sure, the ride was softer in all surfaces, but that was the problem. I found it bouncier, particularly rebound. On pavement, I had to make a sharp evasive maneuver at about 85 MPH. I feel the excess rebound from the taller sidewall caused the tires to unweight enough that the car fishtailed severely. I barely saved it with 3 separate corrections as I swerved all over the lane.

I found a similar loss of performance on dirt roads. Curves at 45 MPH that were previously fine with the Continentals were suddenly sliding all over.

Certainly, the Yokohama tread was great in other respects. I've gotten the stock Contis stuck climbing sandy slopes a couple of times. The Yokohamas didn't have that problem. They were also great at climbing an unplowed road with a foot of chewed up snow on it.

Perhaps I'm driving too aggressively, or at least more so than some. In the end, when I picked up an unrepairable flat from a large bolt, I elected to return to 4 stock sized tires rather than run with slightly mismatched sizes from different wear.

Incidentally, Yokohama is re-designing the Geolanders to be more aggressive. Consequently, even the 65 series are currently in short supply.

See less See more

OutBacca

· #97 · Apr 12, 2018

georgewu said:
I wish I'd seen this thread a couple of years ago. As I posted a couple of weeks ago on another thread, I replaced the stock Conti's with Yokohama's Geolander in the 225/65R17 on my 2014 3.6L.

I really did NOT like them. Sure, the ride was softer in all surfaces, but that was the problem. I found it bouncier, particularly rebound. On pavement, I had to make a sharp evasive maneuver at about 85 MPH. I feel the excess rebound from the taller sidewall caused the tires to unweight enough that the car fishtailed severely. I barely saved it with 3 separate corrections as I swerved all over the lane.

I found a similar loss of performance on dirt roads. Curves at 45 MPH that were previously fine with the Continentals were suddenly sliding all over.

Certainly, the Yokohama tread was great in other respects. I've gotten the stock Contis stuck climbing sandy slopes a couple of times. The Yokohamas didn't have that problem. They were also great at climbing an unplowed road with a foot of chewed up snow on it.

Perhaps I'm driving too aggressively, or at least more so than some. In the end, when I picked up an unrepairable flat from a large bolt, I elected to return to 4 stock sized tires rather than run with slightly mismatched sizes from different wear.

Incidentally, Yokohama is re-designing the Geolanders to be more aggressive. Consequently, even the 65 series are currently in short supply.

I'd say at 85mph that's to be expected.

How are long term MPG / performance reports guys? First post here, have a 2014 OB 2.5 and am really interested in the Geolanders.

Thanks!

Cyrull

· #98 · Apr 20, 2018

OutBacca said:
I'd say at 85mph that's to be expected.

How are long term MPG / performance reports guys? First post here, have a 2014 OB 2.5 and am really interested in the Geolanders.

Thanks!

I average around 18MPG on my 2010 OB 2.5 but I've only had them only for about 5000 Miles. It's on the lower side because I have a Yakima Skybox 18 that I keep on my roof rack all the time and I have a lead foot. I say we do about 50/50 Highway/City.

Can't really say on performance, I've done mostly on asphalt. I don't really notice the road noise as my radio is on almost all the time.

ohio13outback

· #99 · Sep 2, 2019

creso said:
When I bought my 2012 Outback 2.5i Premium I immediately swapped the stock tires for Yokohama Geolander AT/S in the stock 225/60R17 size. When I picked up my 2013 I was planning on getting the same Yokohama Geolanders again. Apparently the 225/60R17 is on international back order until next year! Discount Tire couldn't find them anywhere, so I called Yokohama direct and they said 42 week backorder.

My local Discount Tire had a set of 225/65R17 in stock, so I went for it. They fit fine, but they rubbed in one spot on the front Splash Guards. I removed them and trimmed a bit, and now no rubbing. I took it offroad and articulated all corners, and the front at full wheel lock, and no rubbing. Three guys at the tire shop sat in the cargo area with no rub in the rear.

Just drove 60mi at 65-75mph and averaged 29.5mi/gal. Everything looks good for now, I'll post an update after I get a few more miles on them.

I know this is a old thread but I have a 2013 outback (stock everything) and got an inside deal on Geolander AT G015's in 225/65/17 locally for $300 for 4 new tires. In the post you said "They fit fine, but they rubbed in one spot on the front Splash Guards. I removed them and trimmed a bit, and now no rubbing." Did you have to do additional trimming AFTER you removed the factory front mud guards of another portion of the wheel well or the only trimming was done TO the mud guards themselves? Thank you

81 - 99 of 99 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.